Objective To investigate the dietary patterns of rural residents in the high-incidence areas of esophageal cancer (EC), and to explore the clustering and influencing factors of risk factors associated with high-incidence characteristics. Methods A special structured questionnaire was applied to conduct a face-to-face survey on the dietary patterns of rural residents in Yanting county of Sichuan Province from July to August 2021. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the influencing factors of risk factor clustering for EC. Results There were 838 valid questionnaires in this study. A total of 90.8% of rural residents used clean water such as tap water. In the past one year, the people who ate fruits and vegetables, soybean products, onions and garlic in high frequency accounted for 69.5%, 32.8% and 74.5%, respectively; the people who ate kimchi, pickled vegetables, sauerkraut, barbecue, hot food and mildew food in low frequency accounted for 59.2%, 79.6%, 68.2%, 90.3%, 80.9% and 90.3%, respectively. The clustering of risk factors for EC was found in 73.3% of residents, and the aggregation of two risk factors was the most common mode (28.2%), among which tumor history and preserved food was the main clustering pattern (4.6%). The logistic regression model revealed that the gender, age, marital status and occupation were independent influencing factors for the risk factors clustering of EC (P<0.05). Conclusion A majority of rural residents in high-incidence areas of EC in Yanting county have good eating habits, but the clustering of some risk factors is still at a high level. Gender, age, marital status, and occupation are influencing factors of the risk factors clustering of EC.

Objective:To analyze and compare the short-term efficacy and safety of sintilimab and tislelizumab in neoadjuvant therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Methods:The clinical data of 95 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel + nedaplatin) combined with immunotherapy in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of the Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College from January 2021 to October 2022 were collected. According to the different use of immune drugs, they were divided into the sintilimab group ( n=58) and the tislelizumab group ( n=37). The objective remission rate (ORR), adverse reactions, R0 resection rate, pathological complete response (pCR) rate, etc. were analyzed and compared between the two groups after neoadjuvant therapy. Results:After 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy, the sintilimab group and the tislelizumab group had a similar ORR [72.4% (42/58) vs. 56.8% (21/37), χ2=2.48, P=0.115]. The main adverse reactions of the two groups of patients included gastrointestinal reactions (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), hematological toxicity, hypothyroidism, alopecia, liver and kidney dysfunction, pneumonia, etc. The incidence of grade 3 adverse reactions was less than 15%, with no grade 4 adverse reactions. The incidence of hypothyroidism in the sintilimab group was significantly higher than that in the tislelizumab group [56.9% (33/58) vs. 16.2% (6/37) ], with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=15.45, P<0.001) ; There was no statistically significant difference in surgical resection ( χ2=1.26, P=0.661) and pCR rate [31.0% (18/58) vs. 32.4% (12/37), χ2=0.02, P=0.886] between the two groups of patients. In terms of postoperative complications, both groups of patients experienced partial pulmonary infections and anastomotic fistulas, but the incidence was relatively low [19.0% (11/58) vs. 24.3% (9/37), 3.4% (2/58) vs. 2.7% (1/37) ], with no statistically significant difference ( χ2=0.39, P=0.532; χ2<0.01, P>0.999) . Conclusion:For preoperative neoadjuvant therapy of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the use of either sintilimab or tislelizumab in addition to chemotherapy has good short-term efficacy and safety. Thyroid function should be monitored carefully when using sintilimab.

Objective:To examine the long-term survival outcomes and identify mortality risk factors for coronary artery bypass grafting patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(VA-ECMO) for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.Methods:Data from 121 consecutive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-treated coronary artery bypass grafting(CABG) patients at Beijing Anzhen Hospital between June 2012 and December 2016 were analyzed. There were 84 males and 24 females. The median age was 62(55, 67) years, and the median body mass index was 25(23, 27)kg/m 2. Thirty-seven patients(34%) had left main artery disease, and 56 patients(52%) underwent off-pump CABG. According to the 3 year survival outcome after ECMO, patients were divided into survival group(35 cases) and non-survival group(73 cases). The differences of clinical indicators between the two groups were compared and analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression modeling was used to identify factors independently associated with 36 month mortality. Results:Sixty-five patients(60%) could be weaned from VA-ECMO, 49 patients(45%) survived to hospital discharge, and 35 patients(32%) survived to 3 years. The median( IQR) time on VA-ECMO support was 4(3, 5) days. The median( IQR) length of ICU stay and hospital stay duration were 8(5, 12) and 20(13, 29) days, respectively. Older age( HR=1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.10, P<0.001), left main coronary artery disease( HR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.00-2.60, P=0.048), and vasoactive inotropic score( HR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.03-1.17, P=0.007)were independent risk factors associated with 3-year mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model, which was constructed with age≥60years, left main coronary artery disease, and vasoactive inotropic score>60, was 0.88(95% CI: 0.80-0.95). Conclusion:Long-term survival of patients who survive to discharge appears favorable. Older age, left main coronary artery disease, and vasoactive inotropic score were associated with 3-year mortality in coronary artery bypass grafting patients who received VA-ECMO.

Objective To evaluate the recurrence pattern and identify the risk factors of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery.Methods Clinical data of 275 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery from December 2011 to December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed.The follow-up data of the enrolled patients were complete and analyzable.The recurrence pattern,recurrence time,recurrence location and influencing factors after neoadjuvant therapy in combination with surgery were analyzed.The recurrence rate was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.The multivariate analysis was performed by Cox regression model.Results The median follow-up time was 32 (3-84) months,and the median time of the first recurrence was 10.6(2.0-69.1) months.The 1-,2-and 3-year recurrence rates were 32.0％,45.1％ and 52.3％,respectively.A total of 152 cases (55.3％) had recurrence.Among them,77 cases (50.6％) had local-regional recurrence (LRR),34 cases (23.4％) had distant metastasis (DM),33 cases (21.7％) had LRR+DM and 8 cases (6.0％) had recurrence in unknown site.Among the patients with LRR,lymph node recurrence was the most common (n =98,89.1％).For DM patients,lung metastasis (n =33,49.3％),liver metastasis (n=16,23.9％),bone metastasis (n=14,20.9％) and non-regional lymph node metastasis (n=14,20.9％) were commonly observed.The multivariate analysis showed that postoperative T stage (P=0.008),N stage (P＜0.001) and the number of lymph node dissection (P＜0.001) were the independent risk factors for recurrence after treatment.Conclusions The recurrence rate after neoadjuvant therapy remains relatively high for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,and the regional lymph node is the most common site of recurrence.Postoperative pathological T staging,N staging and the number of lymph node dissection are the independent risk factors for recurrence after treatment.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognostic factors of recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery. Methods: From December 2011 to December 2015, 152 cases of recurrent thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The overall survival (OS) after treatment failure, clinical efficacy and prognostic factors of different salvage treatments were analyzed. OS was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic analysis was performed by using multivariate Cox regression model. Results: The median interval of the first recurrence was 10.6(2.0 to 69.1) months. The median OS after recurrence was 8.0(0.8 to 43.3) months. The 1-, 2-and 3-year OS rates after recurrence were 36.0%, 15.1% and 5.2%, respectively. The median OS of patients with locoregional recurrence alone, distant metastasis alone and locoregional recurrence combined with distant metastasis was 11.3(1.8 to 43.3) months, 6.7(1.2 to 28.6) months and 5.1(0.8 to 22.9) months, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P=0.009), ypTNM stage (P=0.012), comprehensive treatment after recurrence (P=0.000) and locoregional recurrence (P=0.026) were independently correlated with the OS of patients with recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Conclusions Neoadjuvant therapy, ypTNM stage, recurrence pattern and post-recurrence treatment are the independent risk factors for clinical prognosis of patients with recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery. Clinical prognosis of patients with recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy is not satisfactory. After recurrence, combined treatment mode should be adopted according to the site of recurrence and neoadjuvant treatment mode to maximize the benefits of salvage treatment.

Objective:This study was to systematically update the economic evaluation evidence of colorectal cancer screening in mainland China.Methods:Based on a systematic review published in 2015, we expanded the scope of retrieval database (PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, CBM) and extended it to December 2018. Focusing on the evidence for nearly 10 years (2009-2018), basic characteristics and main results were extracted. Costs were discounted to 2017 using the consumer price index of medical and health care being provided to the residents, and the ratio of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to per capita GDP in corresponding years were calculated.Results:A total of 12 articles (8 new ones) were included, of which 9 were population-based (all cross-sectional studies) and 3 were model-based. Most of the initial screening age was 40 years (7 articles), and most of the frequency was once in a lifetime (11 articles). Technologies used for primary screening included: questionnaire assessment, immunological fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and endoscopy. The most commonly used indicator was the cost per colorectal cancer detected, and the median (range) of the 20 screening schemes was 52 307 Chinese Yuan (12 967-3 769 801, n=20). The cost per adenoma detected was 9 220 Yuan (1 859-40 535, n=10). In 3 articles, the cost per life year saved (compared with noscreening) was mentioned and the ratio of ICER to GDP was 0.673 (-0.013-2.459, n=11), which was considered by WHO as "very cost-effective" ; The range of ratios overlapped greatly among different technologies and screening frequencies, but the initial age for screening seemed more cost-effective at the age of 50 years (0.002, -0.013-0.015, n=3), than at the 40 year-olds (0.781, 0.321-2.459, n=8). Conclusions:Results from the population-based studies showed that the cost per adenoma detected was only 1/6 of the cost per colorectal cancer detected, and limited ICER evidence suggested that screening for colorectal cancer was generally cost-effective in Chinese population. Despite the inconclusiveness of the optimal screening technology, the findings suggested that the initial screening might be more cost-effective at older age. No high-level evidence such as randomized controlled trial evaluation was found.

Objective:The existed economic evaluations of cancer screening in Chinese population are almost all single-cancer focused, evidence on parallel comparison among multiple cancers is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study was, from a priority setting perspective, to compare the cost-effectiveness of six common cancers(colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer) to facilitate policy making in future scaled-up screening in populations in China.Methods:Partially based on our previous single-cancer systematic reviews (colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer), evidence of economic evaluations of cancer screening in populations in mainland China were systematically updated and integrated. The main updates include: 1) Stomach cancer and esophageal cancer were newly added to the current analysis. 2) The literature searching was extended to 8 literature databases, including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP. 3) The period of publication year was updated to the recent 10 years: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018. 4) The study focused on populations in mainland China. Following the standard processes of literature searching, inclusion and exclusion from previous systematic reviews, the basic characteristics, evaluation indicators and main results of the included studies were extracted. All the costs were discounted to 2017 value using the by-year consumer price index of medical and health care residents in China and presented in the Chinese Yuan (CNY). The ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to China′s per capita GDP in 2017 were calculated (<1 means very cost-effective, 1-3 means cost-effective, >3 means not cost-effective). Given a specific indicator, the median value among all reported screening strategies for each cancer was calculated, based on which priority ranking was then conducted among all cancers when data available.Results:A total of 45 studies were included, 22 for breast cancer, 12 for colorectal cancer, 6 for stomach cancer, 4 for esophageal cancer (all conducted in high-risk areas), 1 for liver cancer and none for lung cancer (was not then considered for next ranking due to limited numbers of studies). When based on the indicator, the median ratio of cost per life-year saved to China′s per capita GDP (reported in 12 studies), the lowest ratio (-0.015) was observed in esophageal cancer among 16 strategies of 2 studies ( N=2, n=16), followed by 0.297 for colorectal cancer ( N=3, n=12), 0.356 for stomach cancer ( N=1, n=4) and 0.896 for breast cancer ( N=6, n=52, P75=3.602). When based on another commonly used ICER indicator, the median ratio of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to China′s per capita GDP (reported in 13 studies), the least cost was found in stomach cancer (0.495, N=3, n=8, P75=3.126), followed by esophageal cancer (0.960, N=1, n=4, P75=1.762) and breast cancer (2.056, N=9, n=64, P75=4.217). Data was not found for colorectal cancer. In addition, cost per cancer case detected was the most adopted indicator (32 studies). The median cost among all screening strategies for each cancer was 14 759 CNY for stomach cancer ( N=5, n=7), 49 680 CNY for colorectal cancer ( N=12, n=25) and 171 930 CNY for breast cancer ( N=13, n=24), respectively. Data was not available for esophageal cancer and rare for precancer cases detected. Evidence related to cost per disability-adjusted life-year gained was not available. Conclusions:At China′s national level and limited to the six cancers covered by the current study, the preliminary analysis suggests that stomach cancer and colorectal cancer were the most cost-effective target cancers and could be given priority in the future scaled-up screening in general populations. Esophageal cancer screening should be prioritized in high-risk areas. Breast cancer was also cost-effective in general but some of the intensive screening strategies were marginal. Data on liver cancer and lung cancer were too limited to conclude, and more well-designed studies and high-quality research evidence should be required. This priority ranking might be changed if other common cancers were involved analyses.

Objective:The existed economic evaluations of cancer screening in Chinese population are almost all single-cancer focused, evidence on parallel comparison among multiple cancers is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study was, from a priority setting perspective, to compare the cost-effectiveness of six common cancers(colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer) to facilitate policy making in future scaled-up screening in populations in China.Methods:Partially based on our previous single-cancer systematic reviews (colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer), evidence of economic evaluations of cancer screening in populations in mainland China were systematically updated and integrated. The main updates include: 1) Stomach cancer and esophageal cancer were newly added to the current analysis. 2) The literature searching was extended to 8 literature databases, including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP. 3) The period of publication year was updated to the recent 10 years: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018. 4) The study focused on populations in mainland China. Following the standard processes of literature searching, inclusion and exclusion from previous systematic reviews, the basic characteristics, evaluation indicators and main results of the included studies were extracted. All the costs were discounted to 2017 value using the by-year consumer price index of medical and health care residents in China and presented in the Chinese Yuan (CNY). The ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to China′s per capita GDP in 2017 were calculated (<1 means very cost-effective, 1-3 means cost-effective, >3 means not cost-effective). Given a specific indicator, the median value among all reported screening strategies for each cancer was calculated, based on which priority ranking was then conducted among all cancers when data available.Results:A total of 45 studies were included, 22 for breast cancer, 12 for colorectal cancer, 6 for stomach cancer, 4 for esophageal cancer (all conducted in high-risk areas), 1 for liver cancer and none for lung cancer (was not then considered for next ranking due to limited numbers of studies). When based on the indicator, the median ratio of cost per life-year saved to China′s per capita GDP (reported in 12 studies), the lowest ratio (-0.015) was observed in esophageal cancer among 16 strategies of 2 studies ( N=2, n=16), followed by 0.297 for colorectal cancer ( N=3, n=12), 0.356 for stomach cancer ( N=1, n=4) and 0.896 for breast cancer ( N=6, n=52, P75=3.602). When based on another commonly used ICER indicator, the median ratio of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to China′s per capita GDP (reported in 13 studies), the least cost was found in stomach cancer (0.495, N=3, n=8, P75=3.126), followed by esophageal cancer (0.960, N=1, n=4, P75=1.762) and breast cancer (2.056, N=9, n=64, P75=4.217). Data was not found for colorectal cancer. In addition, cost per cancer case detected was the most adopted indicator (32 studies). The median cost among all screening strategies for each cancer was 14 759 CNY for stomach cancer ( N=5, n=7), 49 680 CNY for colorectal cancer ( N=12, n=25) and 171 930 CNY for breast cancer ( N=13, n=24), respectively. Data was not available for esophageal cancer and rare for precancer cases detected. Evidence related to cost per disability-adjusted life-year gained was not available. Conclusions:At China′s national level and limited to the six cancers covered by the current study, the preliminary analysis suggests that stomach cancer and colorectal cancer were the most cost-effective target cancers and could be given priority in the future scaled-up screening in general populations. Esophageal cancer screening should be prioritized in high-risk areas. Breast cancer was also cost-effective in general but some of the intensive screening strategies were marginal. Data on liver cancer and lung cancer were too limited to conclude, and more well-designed studies and high-quality research evidence should be required. This priority ranking might be changed if other common cancers were involved analyses.

Objective To explore the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Methods Clinical data of 60 patients diagnosed with primary central nervous system lymphoma from September 2010 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 50 cases were diagnosed by histopathological examination after stereotactic biopsy or tumor resection and 10 patients were diagnosed by gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI) . Fifty-two patients underwent chemotherapy, and 45 of them received methotrexate-based chemotherapy, 25 received rituximab-based regimen. Twenty-seven patients were given with planned whole brain radiotherapy, while 33 patients were not. Salvage radiotherapy was delivered in 9 patients after treatment failure. Results The median follow-up time was 28 months ( 5-70 months) . The median overall survival time and median progression-free survival time of the whole patients was 22 months ( 5-65 months) and 13 months ( 5-55 months) , respectively. The 4-year overall survival rate and progression-free survival rate were 61% and 33%, respectively. The 4-year overall survival rates between patients with and without planned whole brain radiotherapy were 68% and 54% ( P=0.083) . The 4-year progression-free survival rates between patients with and without planned whole brain radiotherapy were 47% and 20% ( P=0.014) , respectively. Patients with and without salvage whole brain radiotherapy had a 4-year overall survival of 49% and 68%, respectively ( P=0.398) . Among patients who received whole brain radiotherapy, patients with a lower dose of ≤36 Gy had a similar overall survival compared with those with a higher dose of>36 Gy ( 80% vs. 45%, P=0.136) . Conclusions Radiotherapy is part of the comprehensive treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Planned radiotherapy may bring clinical benefits to patients during the comprehensive therapy. However, the irradiation dose to the whole brain should not be too high because of neurotoxicity.

Objective: To compare the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) on the survival of patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: Clinical data of 275 cases of thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery from December 2011 to December 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The data of treatment and follow-up were complete and analyzable. There were 70 cases in the NCRT group and 205 cases in the NCT group. The survival rate was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method and statistically compared by log-rank test, and multivariate analysis was performed by Cox regression model. Results: The median follow-up time was 32(3-84) months. The median survival time and recurrence-free survival time was 42(3-84) months and 30(3-84) months, respectively. The overall 3-and 5-year survival rates were 56.8% and 45.9%, respectively, and the 3-and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 45.1% and 38.9%, respectively. The median survival time in the NCRT and NCT groups was 46(7-84) and 40(4-74) months, and the median recurrence-free survival time was 31(3-84) and 28(3-69) months, respectively. The 3-and 5-year overall survival of the two groups were 59.1%, 47.1% and 56.3%, 47.5%(P=0.515), and the 3-and 5-year recurrence-free survival were 44.5%, 40.1% and 47%, 39%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the survival between two neoadjuvant therapy modes (P=0.554). Multivariate analysis showed that postoperative pathological TNM staging was an independent factor affecting the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer (P=0.001). Conclusions The survival results of NCRT are similar to those of NCT. Postoperative pathological staging is an independent survival factor.